Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. Through promotion of free debate on our website, New Age Islam encourages people to rethink Islam.

Monday, December 17, 2018

Did War-related Madani Verses Abrogate Makki Verses in the Sense of Not Allowing Peaceful Coexistence between Muslims and Non-Muslims?

By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi, New Age Islam

21 August 2018

Some
people ask: why do you call the militants like ISIS, Taliban and other
like-minded groups anti-Islamic, while they base their militancy on what
is often considered a popular classical ruling of abrogation which
demonstrates that the war-related instructions from God in later Madani
verses have replaced and abrogated Makki verses which initially debarred
Muslims from fighting?

A
plain answer is: the classical ruling of abrogation, after my rigorous
study of classical books, does not accept this consideration. There are
many differences on this subject; each needs to be explained in its
appropriate context. Irrespective of going through all details, I have
confined my answer to its necessary points under three questions 1) did the “sword verse” 9:5 really abrogate verses of peace and forbearance? 2) Who are the Mushrikin mentioned in the Verse 9:5? 3) What are the Makki Verses Which Prevented Muslims from Figitng even in defence? 4) What is actually meant when some scholars say the verse 9:5 abrogated verses of peace and forbearance?

Before
discussing these four questions, we should note that the classical
Islamic scholars predominantly disagree with one another on the
war-related Quranic verses abrogating other verses which do not allow
war. It is hard to reach any consensus point. It should also be noted
that now among the contemporary classical Islamic scholars there is
disagreement about the area of application of Naskh- Abrogation. While
highlighting the religious thought of Dr. Maulana Muhammad Fazlur Rahman
Ansari, one of the students of Allama Abdul Aleem Siddiqi Merathi,
Imran Nazar Hosein, a modern Islam scholar and philosopher, speaks of
his teacher’s idea of Naskh- cancellation or abrogation of divine
revelation:

“Maulana
Fazlur Rahman Ansari rejected anything which compromised the integrity
of the Quran, and hence he rejected the application, within the Quran,
of any Naskh (i.e., cancellation or abrogation of any Ayah or
divinely-revealed verse).

“I
was sitting in the classroom attending a class of Tafsir (i.e.,
explanation of the Quran) when the teacher quoted the Hadith concerning a
‘forgotten’ verse of Rajm (i.e., stoning to death) that used to be in
the Qur’an once upon a time. I was quite disturbed to listen to what
appeared to me to be total nonsense, and so I went to Maulana at the end
of the class to seek a clarification from him on the subject of the
integrity of the Quran. “Is it true”, I asked, “that there are verses
which used to be in the Quran once upon a time, and are now forgotten?”
His response to me was to deny such a possibility, and hence to reject
the Hadith about a forgotten verse that used to be in the Quran. He
declared such a Hadith to be a fabrication; and in doing so he upheld
the integrity of the Quran. His view was that no verse of the Quran was
ever cancelled, abrogated or forgotten, and that the verse of the Quran
in Sūrah al-Baqarah on the subject of Naskh (i.e., cancelation or
abrogation of divine revelation) referred to cancellation of previously
revealed laws in previous scriptures, and did not imply that any verse
of the Quran was ever abrogated, cancelled or forgotten:

“Any
(Divinely-revealed) verse or message which We cancel, abrogate, or
cause to be forgotten, We replace with a better or a similar one. Do you
not know that Allah has the power over all things?” (Qur’ān,
al-Baqarah, 2:106)

“Here
is the Hadith in Sahih Bukhari which recorded what we were asked to
believe were the words of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab (May Allah be pleased
with him) who is reported to have said that when the Quran was revealed
there was a verse in it on Rajm (i.e., stoning to death as punishment
for adultery). Since the verse is no longer in the Qur’an, the
implication, for those who accept that verses of the Qur’an can be
abrogated, would be that Allah Most High either cancelled the verse, or
caused it to be forgotten:

“…
and the book (i.e., the Qur’ān) was revealed to him, and amongst that
which Allah sent down was a verse on Rajm (i.e., the punishment of
stoning to death for adultery), so we recited (the verse), and we
understood it, and we applied it …” (Bukhārī, Hadīth Number 6829)

If
Allah Most High cancelled the verse, or caused it to be forgotten, then
why did ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) attempt to restore it?
Did he have the authority to do so? Maulana pointed out, correctly so,
that it would have been the function of the divinely-appointed teacher
of the Qur’an to declare that a verse of the Qur’an was cancelled,
abrogated or forgotten, but Nabi Muhammad (peace be upon him) never did
such a thing, and no one has the authority to do such a thing other than
the divinely-appointed teacher of the Quran. The truth is that Naskh
(i.e., cancellation/abrogation of an Ayah or verse, or causing an Ayah
to be forgotten) did not apply internally to verses of the Qur’An, but,
rather, externally to certain previous divine revelations. Here are
examples of precisely such cancellations:


Cancellation (for the followers of Nabī Muhammad peace be upon him) of
Jerusalem as the Qiblah or direction to be faced in prayer, and
replacement with the Ka’aba in Makkah as the new Qiblah;

 Cancellation (for the followers of Nabī Muhammad

peace
be upon him) of the previous law of fasting in the Torah which
prohibited eating, drinking and sexual relations in the nights of
fasting, with a new law which permitted such;


Cancellation of the law of punishment for adultery in the Torah of Rajm
or stoning to death, and replacement of Rajm with a new law of public
flogging;


Cancellation of the freedom for a man to have as many wives as he
wished in previous law as practiced by Prophets such as Nabī Dāūd
(David) and Nabī Sulaimān (Solomon peace be upon them), and replacement
with a new law restricting or limiting the number of wives to four;


Cancellation of the spiritual retreat (known in the Qur'an as I'tikāf)
being performed in lonely places far from the madding crowd, and
replacement with a new law which required that I'tikāf must now be
performed in the Masjid;

 Cancellation of permission (for those who follow Nabī Muhammad peace be upon him) to consume alcoholic drinks.

“This
response to my question set Maulana apart as a unique scholar in a
world of Islamic scholarship which almost universally held that some
verses of the Quran cancelled other verses, and hence that some verses
of the Quran (such as an alleged verse on Rajm) used to be in the Quran
once upon a time, but are now forgotten. One had to be a scholar of
incredible courage and intellectual integrity to so challenge and defy
almost an entire world of Islamic scholarship. Our readers are surely
familiar with the pathetic refrain – how can one scholar be correct and
all the rest wrong? Here was an example of one scholar who was correct,
when most of the rest of his contemporaries in the world of Islamic
scholarship were wrong. The problem that we must now address is: why is
there no mention of this admirable and entirely correct view on Naskh in
the QFSMS which is his magnum opus on the Qur’ān? Why is the QFSMS
silent on the subject of Naskh? It will forever remain a matter of
profound sadness that Maulana chose not to present in QFSMS, or in any
other written record or public lecture, the view of Naskh which he
disclosed to me on that fateful day. Is there any explanation for this
enigma?

What Allah Causes To Be Forgotten!

“Although
Maulana made no mention of it when he answered me on that memorable
day, we may add for the benefit of readers, that only ‘part’ of that
which was sent down by Allah Most High on Nabī Muhammad (peace be upon
him) constituted revelations of the Qur’ān. There was much that was sent
down on him which did not form part of the Quran. Muslims are well
aware, for example, that there are many Ahadith which contain the direct
speech of Allah Most High, and are known as Hadith al-Qudsi, which do
not form part of the Quran. It is with reference to such divine
inspiration sent to mankind, including Prophets of Allah, and to Nabi
Muhammad (peace be upon him) himself, that the Quran has revealed that
Allah can cause such a person to forget whatever Allah chooses to have
forgotten:

“We shall teach you, and you will not forget [anything of what you are taught], (87:6)

“Save
what Allah may will [you to forget] – for, verily, He [alone] knows all
that is open to [man’s] perception as well as all that is hidden [from
it].” (Qur’ān, al-’Ala, 87:6-7)

“This
‘forgetting’ does not at all apply to the revelation of verses of the
Qur’ān. The Qur’ān has, in fact, recorded an event in which Allah did
cause the Prophet (peace be upon him) to forget an item of knowledge
that was sent down to Him through Angel Gabriel, but which did not form
part of the Holy Book. The reader can find it in the commentary to Sūrah
al-Kahf, 18:23-4. It is possible that Allah first teaches something to a
special servant of his, such as a Prophet, and then causes that
knowledge to be forgotten, because, in His wisdom, He wants that
knowledge to be subsequently presented in a new form appropriate to a
new stage in the historical process. And Allah Knows best!”

(Imran Nazar Hosein, An Introduction to Methodology for Study of the Qur’an, p. 233-239)

Maulana
Fazlur Rahman’s view, as quoted above, is apparently different from
other modern-day scholars as well as scholars of the past. And even
among the scholars of the past there is huge difference in context of
treating the ruling of abrogation. Ibn Arabi, Jalaluddin Suyuti, Ibn
Kathir, Shah Waliullah, Allama Zarkashi, Allama Makki etc differ from
one another on the subject of ruling of abrogation. We will take what is
preponderant and accepted view in this regard- the view which is fully
in agreement with religious sentiments as well as the present-day
relations based on mutual promise of peaceful coexistence. For the very
solid reason I have planned to answer the questions mentioned above,
covering their necessary points.

Did The “Sword Verse” 9:5 Really Abrogate Verses Of Peace And Forbearance?

Some
scholars say the verse 9:5 abrogated Makki verses of peace and
forbearance. Ibn Kathir says, “This Ayah (9:5) is called the Ayah of the
sword about which Dhahhak b. Mazahim said: “it abrogated every
agreement of peace between the Prophet- peace be upon him- and any
Mushrik, every treaty and every term”. Al-Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas
commented on this verse (9:5): “No Mushrik had any more treaty or
promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah was revealed” (Tafsir Ibn
Kathir, vol 2, p 573)

“Then
the Mufasserin (exegetes) differed from one another on the Ayah of the
sword (9:5). Dhahhak and Suddi said, “This Ayah (9:5) has been abrogated
by the divine statement “...Then choose (to release them) either (as) a
favour (shown to them) or (after receiving) ransom....” (47:4). However
Qatadah said the opposite [of what Dhahhak and Suddi said]

However,
in my opinion, the war-related Makki verses did not abrogate the Madani
verses, as classical jurists like Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti, Zarkashi etc
substantiated the very idea in their respective masterful works on
Sciences of Quran.

In his book “Al-Itqan
fi Ulum al-Quran” which is regarded one of the masterful works on
Sciences of Quran, Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti explains that contrary to what
some jurists believed, this verse 9:5 is not a case of abrogation but
rather of context. In certain situations, verses of patience and
forgiveness apply, while in others, fighting is necessary. He implies
that no verse was totally terminated by another, but rather each has a
specific context and applicability.

Imam
Suyuti also quotes Allama Makki as saying “a group of jurists believe
that the verse “But pardon them and overlook [their misdeeds]. Indeed,
Allah loves the doers of good” (5:13) is Muhkam and not
abrogated, because in such a divine statement there is a case of context
and applicability” (Al-Itqan fi Ulum al-Quran, vol-2, pp.70-71).

The
same understanding is reinforced by the prominent jurist and legal
theorist Imam Zarkashi in his masterful work on the Sciences of Quran,
“Al-Burhan fi Ulum al-Quran”. Referring to a number of Mufassirin, Imam
Zarkashi explains one of the meanings of Naskh. He writes,

The above mentioned Arabic passage of Imam Zarkashi implies that many
commentators (Mufassirin) took wrong understanding that the sword verse
abrogated verses of patience and forbearance. The reason is that the
“abrogation” entails a complete termination of a legal ruling, never to
be implemented again. This, he substantiates, is not the case with such
verses. Instead each verse entails a particular ruling specific for a
particular context. As circumstances change, different verses are to be
applied instead of others. What is truly entailed by abrogation is that
no ruling is eternally terminated. To substantiate his argument, Imam
Zarkashi also gives an example from Imam Shafi’s “al-Risala” which can
be seen in the referenced book.

The
conclusion of the above mentioned two masters of Quranic Sciences is
that the verse 9:5 by no means abrogated the verses of peace and
forbearance – rather, each verse needs to be implemented in its
appropriate situation.

Who Are the Mushrikin Mentioned In the Verse 9:5

Al-Baydawi
(d.685H) in his book “Anwar al-Tanzeel wa Asrar al-Taweel (The Lights
of Revelation and the Secrets of Interpretation, V. 3, p. 71, 9:5-
Arabic version)”, a classical tafsir which is included in Madrasas of
Indian subcontinent, writes while interpreting the verse, "فاقتلوا
المشركين (أي) الناكثين", which means that the word Mushrikin mentioned
in the Ayah 9:5 refers to Nakithin- those who violated peace treaties by
violating war against the Muslims.

“In
his commentary on the above mentioned Quranic Ayah 9:5, Imam Ibn Hatim
quotes Hazrat Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him, who was the
companion and cousin of the beloved Prophet peace be upon him) as
saying: ‘The Mushrikin mentioned in this Ayah refer to those Mushrikin
of Quraish with whom the Prophet –peace be upon him- had made treaty [of
peace]” (Durr-e-Manthoor, V.3, p.655- Urdu version)

Such
commentaries, according to other Islamic scholars, are substantiated by
what the Qur’an itself says in the Ayah 13 of same chapter,

“Will
you not fight against those who violated their oaths (of
peace-treaties), plotted the expulsion of the messenger, and initiated
the fighting against you?” (9:13) And the Ayah 36 of Surah Taubah says,
“and fight against the Mushrikin collectively as they fight against you
collectively; and know well that Allah is with the pious.” (9:36)

Implication
of these two verses (9:13) and (9:36) and comments of classical jurists
as mentioned above is that the Mushrikin mentioned in the verse 9:5 are
not all Mushrikin but those violated peace-treaties by waging war
against the early Muslims.

What Is Actually Meant When Some Scholars Say The Verse 9:5 Abrogated Verses Of Peace And Forbearance?

In
my opinion the war-related verses did not permanently terminate the
verses of peace and forbearance. Each verse had a particular context and
applicability. However is actually meant when some scholars say the
verse 9:5 abrogated Madani verses of peace and forbearance? The answer
is that they must have meant that the war-related Madani verses actually
abrogated the Makki verses which did not allow fighting in self-defence
against religious persecutions. In other words, the early Muslims were
initially not allowed to fight in defence, but when the Madani verses
were revealed, they were allowed to fight in self-defence against
religious persecutions. It is in that sense that the war-related Madani
verses abrogated Makki verses and the command of debarring Muslims from
fighting even in self-defence was replaced with instruction to defend
with arms. As from the Islamic perspective, the militants like ISIS and
Taliban are not fighting in self-defence, as they are the first to
initiate war. Therefore, they can’t be considered Islamic. Other reasons
that make them anti-Islamic are that they are killing non-combatant
peace-loving citizens including Muslims and non-Muslims, women, children
and old, destroying Islamic monuments, cultural heritage, and
justifying all these crimes by misusing the sacred book, the Quran of
One True God.

What are the Makki Verses Which Prevented Muslims from Fighting even in defence?

We
should keep in mind that before revelation of 2:190 or 22:39, fighting
even in self-defence was forbidden in Makkah and initially in Madina
too. The Quranic verses which directly or indirectly debarred Muslims,
in the initial period, from waging war even in self-defence are 23:96,
5:13, 73:10, 16:82, 88:21-22, 50:45.

“Repel evil with the best deeds; We well know the matters that they fabricate”. (23:96)

“And be patient over what they say and avoid them with gracious avoidance”. (73:10)

“Then
if they turn away, O dear Prophet, (Mohammed – peace and blessings be
upon him) upon you is nothing but to clearly convey (the message)”.
(16:82)

“Therefore
advise; indeed, you are a proclaimer of advice. (The Holy Prophet is a
Remembrance from Allah.) You are not at all a guardian over them”.
(88:21-22)

“And you are not one to use force over them” (50:45)

However,
when the verse 2:190 or 22:39 was revealed, fighting in self-defence
against religious persecutions was allowed against those who initiated
fighting; “And fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against
you, but do not transgress. Truly Allah loves not the transgressors.”
(2:190).

There
is disagreement among the scholars as to which one of them first
permitted fighting in self-defence. However, the preponderant statement
[Qaul-e-Rajih] among scholars is that the verse 2:190 is the first in
this regard. For details, the readers can go through my article titled

It
means that before the revelation of 2:190 and 22:39, fighting was not
permitted even in self-defence but when these verses (2:190 or 22:39)
were revealed, they abrogated other Makki verses which debarred Muslims
from waging war even in self-defence. It is that sense which should be
taken from the popular statement of Ulema and exegetes (mufassir) which
reads “Madani war-related verses abrogated Makki verses which debarred
Muslims from waging war (in self-defence)”.

However,
it does not mean that the Madani verses have abrogated the concepts of
developing peaceful coexistence and providing security to the
non-Muslims.

This
understanding is based on my rigorous study and is in accord with the
exhortations in Quran, Hadith, and views of Ulema and exegetes who too
think that fighting is not allowed against non-combatant, peaceful
non-Muslims. Therefore, it will be wrong to infer either of the
statements that war-related verses abrogated peace-related verses or
peace-related verses abrogated war-related verses. Similarly, no need to
infer that there is contradiction in the Quran in the context of war
and peace. No need to conclude that peace-related verses abrogated
war-related verses. This of course is not supported by any effective
evidence. (As for universality, applicability or generality of verses,
these are subjects different from the issue of abrogation.) No need to
deduce that the war-related verses have abrogated peace-related verses.
Then what should we infer from the popular studies of the Quran and
Hadith which are acceptable to all Muslims? Please tell them that the
abrogation in the popular concept “Madani verses abrogated Makki verses”
actually means abrogating the command which debarred the early Muslims
from waging war inself-defence against religious persecutions. Yes, it
is that sense which should be taken out of the popular classical ruling
of abrogation which does not support in any way the evil purpose of
militants and terrorists.

In
our age, every individual or group can claim the right of self-defence.
However, self-defence against religious persecutions, which can also be
termed as Jihad in Islam, can’t be waged on an individual or group
level. Detailed as it is in the books of Islamic Jurisprudence, this
sort of in self-defence war can be waged only on the state level and
only against religious persecutions for the sake of God and “to fight
against those who fight you” without transgressing limits.

At
this point, it is essential to recall what I have learnt from classical
studies of Islam that even during the state of defensive war, the
following rulings of war mentioned in ahadith were practiced by the
early Muslims.

(1) “Do not kill any child, any woman, or any elder or sick person.” (Sunan Abu Dawud)

(2) “Do not practice treachery or mutilation. (Muwatta Malik)

(3)
“Do not destroy the villages and towns, do not spoil the cultivated
fields and gardens, and do not slaughter the cattle.” (Sahih Bukhari;
Sunan Abu Dawud)

(4) “Do not kill the monks in monasteries, and do not kill those sitting in places of worship. (Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal)

(5) “Do not uproot or burn palms or cut down fruitful trees. (Al-Muwatta)

(6)
“Do not wish for an encounter with the enemy; pray to Allah to grant
you security; but when you [are forced to] encounter them, exercise
patience.” (Sahih Muslim)

(7) “No one may punish with fire except the Lord of Fire.” (Sunan Abu Dawud).

The
above-mentioned instructions are related to the self-defensive wars
waged by Muslim states against religious persecutions. As for those
living in minority or majority in agreement with the established
constitution ensuring peace and security, it is not permissible for them
to violate the constitution, otherwise they will be counted among those
whose fate was predicted by the sayings of the beloved Prophet Muhammad
(peace be upon him) as quoted below;

The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said,

Translation:
“Beware, if anyone persecutes any peaceful non-Muslim citizen
[Mu’ahid], or diminishes his right, or forces him to work beyond his
capacity, or takes from him anything without his consent, I shall plead
for him on the Day of Judgment.” (Please see Sunan Abi Dawud – Book 20,
Hadith 125- Arabic reference).

The
purport of this Hadith is that if any Muslim persecutes any peaceful
non-Muslim citizen, or diminishes his right and so on, as mentioned
above in the Hadith, the beloved Prophet (peace be upon him) will plead
for that peaceful non-Muslim on the Day of Judgment.

This
Hadith is not simply a warning but a law promulgated in the blessed era
of the beloved Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) even
after the conquest of Makka [Fath-e-Makka]. This law is still a part of
Islam. There is not a single hint of its being abrogated. Thus,
according to the great Ulema and Fuqaha of Islam, this law is universal
and all-time valid in its essence and application. Therefore, none of
the followers of Ahadith or the followers of the interpretation of great
Ulema and Fuqaha should hesitate to accept the message inherent in this
Hadith.

Similar
Hadith has been reported by several well-known Muhaddethin like
Bukhari, Nasai, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, as follows;

“Whoever
kills a peaceful non-Muslim living in minority [Mu'ahid] shall not
smell the fragrance of Paradise, though its fragrance can be smelt at a
distance of forty years (of travelling). (Sahih Bukhari, Book 87, Hadith
52)

“Whoever
kills a peaceful non-Muslim living in minority or under Muslim-governed
country [Mu'ahad] with no justification, Allah will forbid Paradise to
him.” (Sunan Nasai, Book 45, Chapter “Seriousness of killing the
Mua’hid”, Hadith 42)

“Indeed,
whoever kills a peaceful non-Muslim living in minority or under the
Muslim protection [Mu'ahid] that has a covenant from Allah and a
covenant from His Messenger (peace be upon him), then he has violated
the covenant with Allah and the covenant of His Messenger, so he shall
not smell the fragrance of Paradise; even though its fragrance can be
sensed from the distance of seventy autumns.” (Jami’ al-Tirmidhi, Book
16, Hadith 19)

“Whoever
kills a peaceful non-Muslim living under the protection of Muslim-run
country [Mu’ahid], will not smell the fragrance of Paradise, even though
its fragrance may be detected from a distance of forty years” (Sunan
Ibn Majah, Book 21, Hadith 2789-Arabic reference)

“Whoever
kills a peaceful non-Muslim (living in Muslim-run country) who has the
covenant with Allah and the covenant with his Messenger, will not smell
the fragrance of Paradise, even though its fragrance may be detected
from a distance of seventy years” (Sunan Ibn Majah, Book 21, Hadith
2788-Arabic reference)

Implication
of all that mentioned above is that the war-related verses like 9:5 did
not abrogate verses of peace and forbearance. If according to some
other mufassirin this is not the case, it should be then established
that their view “some war-related Madani verses abrogated Makki verses
which debarred Muslims from fighting” does not mean that Madani verses
have abrogated all Makki verses which confine them to develop peaceful
coexistence with non-Muslims. Instead they mean, in plain words, that
the command of self-defence fighting abrogated the command debarring
from self-defence fighting against religious persecutions. If it had not
been the case, the same classical Islamic scholars would not have
quoted such ahadith as mentioned above which ask Muslims to respect the
rights of non-combatant peaceful non-Muslims and guarantee the
protection of lives of non-Muslims living in minority or majority.

In
the last section of this article we have known that some classical
jurists view that “some war-related Madani verses abrogated Makki verses
which debarred Muslims from fighting”. This view actually implies that
the command of self-defence fighting abrogated the command debarring
from self-defence fighting against religious persecutions. This is
supported by the same classical jurists, when they quote the beloved
prophet (peace be upon him) as saying, “Whoever kills a peaceful
non-Muslim (living in Muslim-run country) who has the covenant with
Allah and the covenant with his Messenger, will not smell the fragrance
of Paradise...” as referenced above. But there arises a problem when you
separately read two apparently contradicting views 1) “some war-related
Madani verses abrogated Makki verses which debarred Muslims from
fighting” 2) “Whoever kills a peaceful non-Muslim (living in Muslim-run
country) who has the covenant with Allah and the covenant with his
Messenger, will not smell the fragrance of Paradise...”. This article of
mine, in my opinion, is first of its kind to present reconciliation
between these two apparently contradicting views, as I have not yet seen
any work of this style. This article will be very effective (Insha-a
Allah) to stop the mouth of those who misuse Islam for their nefarious
deeds. Restoring this understanding, as discussed throughout this
article, is therefore necessary to defeat tricks of terrorist ideologues
and save the youth from being brainwashed and developing misconceptions
about Islam, majority mainstream Muslims and pious Ulama.